[racket-dev] module mismatch with .zos

From: Dan Liebgold (dan.liebgold at gmail.com)
Date: Tue Oct 16 14:45:22 EDT 2012

It seems like the timestamps among just the .zo and .dep files will cause
us issues as well due to how Perforce works. When you sync, Perforce sets
the timestamp of the file to the time of sync. If I sync all of a Racket
distribution my file timestamps will not be coherent from Racket's point of
view, right?

As far as I can tell, one of these things must change for our setup to be

- use of precompilation (going without .zos entirely should eliminate this
- use of Perforce; with proper timestamps Racket will not complain
- the compilation manager; if we change the default implementation to
ignore timestamps and just go by file existence we should be ok

Does this sound like an accurate assessment?


On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Robby Findler
<robby at eecs.northwestern.edu>wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Dan Liebgold <dan.liebgold at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Is there any chance that the ".zo" file timestamps became earlier than
> >> the ".rkt" timestamps on end-users' machines?
> >>
> >
> > Yes that is possible... we're distributing using Perforce, which
> timestamps
> > files at the time of syncing. Would that give the result I'm seeing?
> >
> > I'm guessing I should supply a custom compile-manager to ignore rkt
> files.
> > This is certainly a case where we would like to only care about .zos.
> You could just omit the source files, if you really don't care about
> them being there.
> Robby

Dan Liebgold    [dan.liebgold at gmail.com]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/attachments/20121016/4db6a133/attachment.html>

Posted on the dev mailing list.